I posted a clip from Derrick Bell last week which included some pretty obvious Marxist undertones, but this this is like a Marxism primer. CUNY TV in New York has curiously pulled a video clip of this down from their site, and YouTube, but cmon, you know thats not going to stop me. From 2007:

(Full source MP3 available here.)

But I thought according to Soledad OBrien, Critical Race Theory was just about the intersection of race and politics and stuff?

On a related note, does this (pdf) remind of you anyone?

The empathethic perspective also comes from the Critical Race Theory tradition, which suggests that a diverse judiciary greatly shapes judicial decision making, legal analysis, and, by extension, the law itself. Specifically, judges who hail from different social or cultural backgrounds may provide a more nuanced understanding of facts, evidence, and credibility determinations than judges who lack such experience.

Can you imagine a Caucasian Republican President found to have spent much of his youth in the company of skinheads and KKK members? Can you imagine a Caucasian Republican President found to have been a member of the Aryan Nation? Can you imagine a Caucasian Republican President, on video, asking listeners to open their hearts and minds to the words of Richard Butler?

Yeah, neither can I.

7
posted on 03/11/2012 3:20:43 PM PDT
by liberalh8ter
(Barack has a memory like a steel trap; it's a gift ~ Michelle Obama)

Of course they do which is inherently unfair compared to a system where people rise or fall based on their own merits. Bell himself engaged in picking and choosing winners. He tried to blacklist a black professor from tenure at Harvard because he didn’t buy into Bell’s crackpot race theory. Bell didn’t want a fair system he just wanted to be the oppressor.

10
posted on 03/11/2012 4:05:10 PM PDT
by TigersEye
(Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)

To some extent CRT is correct that laws that do not mention race were indeed used to target and suppress some races at the benefit of others.

Several years ago, during the public debate on a ballot proposition in Missouri on the subject of concealed carry, one group in St. Louis carried an article that recalled the long and sad history of Missouri law and indeed laws in southern states that were passed to prohibit carrying of concealed weapons but at the time were never meant to be enforced against white people.

It quotes legal scholars Robert Cottrol and Raymond in a 1995 Chicago-Kent College of Law article, titled “Never Intended to be Applied to the White Population: Firearms Regulation and Racial Disparity— The Redeemed South’s Legacy to a National Jurisprudence?”

These scholars, and others, show that over time those laws began to apply to every citizen and now those who champion the right to self defense must claw their way back to a legal way to carry a concealed weapon.

The article ends by asking that isn’t this what Blacks wanted all along, that we must have law that applies to everyone in the same way? This is why “may issue” laws are so dangerous to the civil rights of everyone, in that it institutionalizes disparate treatment. We see this in New York and LA where celebrities can get a concealed carry permit but the little people are routinely turned down.

Would that none of our laws were every cryptically designed to give disparate advantage or deny rights to anyone any more.

However, in closing, let me point out that Critical Race Theory was developed as a vehicle by which to justify socialism in repairing the defects of our present legal structure. The proof is in how CRT was used and in what disparity that advocates of CRT complained of.

They complained about the disparate number of blacks suffering from drug laws tailored to the drugs that blacks were more likely to use than whites. I am very sympathetic to that complaint. However, champions of CRT were not at all concerned when laws that were meant to prevent blacks from exercising their rights under the Second Amendment also came to prevent everyone from enjoying those rights. The truth was they only cared about some rights and not all rights. And in that bias, we see the real reason that CRT was so popular with the left. It was yet another way to bash our Constitution and our unalienable rights in the same overarching way the ACLU does.

Neither prohibitions on carrying guns nor “may issue” laws are in line with the character of the Constitution and Bill of Rights so Critical Race Theory is not supported by pointing to them. If anything the un-Constitutional nature of those laws proves the opposite about our founding principles than what Bell espoused. That is it is necessary to try to by-pass founding principles in order to pass discriminatory laws.

14
posted on 03/11/2012 4:36:51 PM PDT
by TigersEye
(Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)

It is clear by the totality of the evidence so far that Bell is indeed hostile to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, except where it would advance his liberal agenda.

When we have a law, such as existed in Missouri for several generations that prohibited carrying concealed firearms but yet was initially only applied to Blacks but not to whites, we have a pattern that exactly follows Critical Race Theory.

My observation was that Bell and those who champion CRT never have raised, nor would they ever raise, the same objection to laws like this that they raised against other laws that had a similar pattern of deliberate disparate enforcement.

When we have a law, such as existed in Missouri for several generations that prohibited carrying concealed firearms but yet was initially only applied to Blacks but not to whites, we have a pattern that exactly follows Critical Race Theory.

CRT says that racism was written into our founding documents but the law you're talking about is antithetical to those documents. That makes CRT fall flat on its face.

17
posted on 03/11/2012 5:07:27 PM PDT
by TigersEye
(Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)

“CRT says that racism was written into our founding documents but the law you’re talking about is antithetical to those documents. “

Yes, you are right about that claim. In my opinion, that is just more proof of the agenda of CRT advocates. They would overthrow our founding documents with what? They don’t want to be seen on camera answering that question.

That’s for sure. The most they will say is couched in vague terms like “hope,” “change” or “fairness.” Specific definitions of the kind of change they want are never spoken. Not in public anyway. We do have tapes of good communists like Van Jones spelling it out in private venues to faithful followers of the cause.

20
posted on 03/11/2012 6:14:07 PM PDT
by TigersEye
(Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.